Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

jin wrote:"Aikido is the religion that is not a religion; it perfects and completes all religions."

In my mind, aikido is not a religion.

-- Jun

I have noticed that a lot of things in Aikido require literally, faith - in a way, like Indiana Jones stepped into that canyon in the third movie.

I remember that I did my first roll out of faith.
I had do have faith in the fact that my arm will not collapse.
When I gathered enough, I did a roll and it worked.
Of course there were many times when it didn't and I let it collapse because I was afraid and lacking... faith.

Then I hurt my back, shoulders, etc.

kokyu dosa appears to be something also requiring faith. I noticed that the power of your center really kicks in during the middle of the technique, but that first part has to be more or less based on faith, for an amateur like myself.

And now when I'm learning breakfalls, it also requires faith...

Respectfully, I think you have faith mixed up with willpower. You willed yourself to accept the roll. Faith, is to have a firm belief without logical proof. I'm sure you've seen people take the roll before you had attempted it which would give you some logical proof, so the rest was you just willing yourself to do it. It would have been faith if you had never seen it done before, but were only told that it would be safe.

Erik wrote:
I can prove to you that a person can highfall in exactly the time it takes me to hit the ground. I can replicate that process with you. It does require faith but it ain't the same thing. [/b]

I'm sorry but I have trouble understanding what you mean by this.
Could you explain ?

DiNalt wrote:I also have to add, Rob, that your definition of faith as "Faith, is to have a firm belief without logical proof. " was a well fit for me when I first came in.

Seeing other students roll over their arm effortlessly, I didn't accept it as a logical proof. It pretty much looked like a miracle/trick/impossible to do thing to me.

Therefore, my rolls did require faith.
Besides, I can have all the faith in other people's arms, but it ain't worth squat when it comes to actually MY arm.

Mileage differs, I guess.

I guess that it was just the way you had worded it that made me think that you might have gotten the two terms mixed up. So, you seeing it happening right in front of you wasn't enough to convince you that it could be done by you too. In that case, it was faith, because faith rises out of something besides your six senses.

And I didn't at all mean or even write that people started without willpower. Everyone has willpower. Oh, and that wasn't my definition of faith. It's Oxford's

Erik wrote:
I can prove to you that a person can highfall in exactly the time it takes me to hit the ground. I can replicate that process with you. It does require faith but it ain't the same thing.

I'm sorry but I have trouble understanding what you mean by this.
Could you explain ?

Thanks.

You can logically evaluate the evidence (seeing me highfall) and conclude that you or someone else can do it. This will get even easier the more people you see high fall. There is evidence that it can be done and we can pile evidence on top of evidence.

With Christianity there is no proof of god. There is no methodology for meeting god. There is no evidence of god. There is nothing. Hence, belief in god requires an act of faith for no other reason than you believe. Just because, rather than seeing it with your own eyes.

Being a Christian, I too had a many discussions regarding things like akupuncture, reiki, homeopathy and, of course, aikido with members of my congregation. I'm kind of "suspicious" anyway because I study natural siences and therefore insist on rational discussions without dogmas.
I don't believe in religion, I believe in Jesus. Being created as an individual, my faith and my relationship with God are individual. Something everyone agreed with when our minister talked about individuality. But if it comes to "practical exercises", many people reject everything outside the accepted, traditional system of thoughts of a congregation as bad and / or even satanic. This means that nobody wants to find out about new things and tries to hide behind dogmas and tradition.
I really prayed a lot when I took up aikido and I was confirmed that aikido was all right for me. I tried to point out to my congregation that I'm not seeking enlightment or salvation by doing aikido-I've got salvation already.

Dear Johannes,
this quote above is from my post on the "Aikido and being Christian" topic (July 2000). When I was a kid, I had to go to church and was kinda fed up, too at the age of 15/16. I became a Christian six years ago on a summer camp by my best friend's congregation. As you may see in my post above, I'm in a congregation that is rather fundamentalist. But that doesn't matter! What I did learn in my own development as a Christian is that I'M FREE. I'm not religious, I'm a Christian. And I can tell you, aikido helped my a lot to get there because I learned to dare discuss things like that with my concregation (quite successfully, my favor), to really think about things like aikido the way of "what would Jesus do" rather than "what's the opinion and /or law of my congregation". As I said before, the most important thing I learned is that I'm free. There is a very good book by Gerald Coates called "Non-Religious Christianity" (Revival Press) which helped me a lot.

Erik wrote:
With Christianity there is no proof of god. There is no methodology for meeting god. There is no evidence of god. There is nothing. Hence, belief in god requires an act of faith for no other reason than you believe. [/b]

Not quite so. There's also logical thought. We can take what we know and deduce other things from it. For example, we know that according to physical law, all physical things come from something else. Nothing physical can just be, but requires something else to create it, generate it, bring it into existence, etc. However, we also know that since all things in the universe (physically speaking) are physical, that something must have created at least the most primal piece(s) of existence without first being created, else we would have an infinite cycle of something creating the thing before it, creating the thing before it, yet never knowing where that ended. Since this Primary Force cannot be physical (again, nothing physical can just be, but must be made by something else), it must have been above physical law. Thus, from our knowledge of physical law, we can deduce that some metaphysical force must have created something(s) physical for us to be at all. Whether It created space and a bunch of gases and set them into motion, resulting in the Big Bang and thus indirectly creating everything else, or whether It hand crafted each thing we know of is completely unknown. But we can deduce that something greater than the universe as we know it created the universe as we know it.

Faith comes into play because this thesis cannot be scientifically proven. Since we are incapable of manipulating metaphysical substance of any kind, we cannot demonstrate this thesis, and thus we cast our entire belief on how existence came to be and what happens after this life on what our brain tells us is fairly reasonable, which can be quite a difficult thing to do.

I must echo the previous posts, especially that of Anne, by saying that I too have often tried to separate faith from religion. My faith is totally separate from my religion... as far as my faith goes, I don't much care if you say it's wrong and bad and I'm headed for damnation... my faith is entirely personal, and therefore I am not as open to talk about it. However, if you say that the Christian church has problems, I'd probably agree with you... just turn to channel 17 and look at the "priests" promising salvation for the measly fund of $700... Many times I compare the Christian church to the budo, but not because I view the budo as any sort of religion. More because, I see many kinds of identical mindsets in both. To the outsider, both look rather silly, very esoteric and something that one could most certainly do without and still lead a healthy life. And many do. There are frauds who call themselves ministers, there are frauds who call themselves budo sensei. However, if you look deeper, find a good place to practice your faith or budo, with a group of people that you enjoy, the experiences and enjoyment you receive from it most certainly cannot be measured by science.

Nick

---
Nick Porter
"Do not fall into the trap of the artisan who boasts twenty years of experience, when in fact he has had only one year of experience-- twenty times."

I think that a the definition of faith by webster might help others as it did me.

Faith:
1:Allegance or duty to a person:Loyalty.
2:belief and trust in God
3:complete trust
While I dont think that Aikido is a faith, it does take faith. And i feel that it makes me a better person in mind body and spirit.

"It is better to die on your feet
than to live a lifetime on your knees"
Emiliano Zapata

Not quite so. There's also logical thought. We can take what we know and deduce other things from it.

There's nothing special about logical thought. Logic arises from cognitive metaphor of basic perceptual schema, in the context of neural physiology. Platonism died with modern biology and cognitive science. Translation: we can take what we think we know and imagine things about it.

Quote:

For example, we know that according to physical law, all physical things come from something else. Nothing physical can just be, but requires something else to create it, generate it, bring it into existence, etc. ...

What physical law would this be? I have a Ph.D. in physics and I have never heard of it. What is a 'physical thing'?

Quote:

else we would have an infinite cycle of something creating the thing before it, creating the thing before it, yet never knowing where that ended.

Is time itself not a 'physical thing'? This notion of 'before' is too simplistic to address questions about the origin of the universe.

I have no problem if people want to believe in metaphysical things. Not everyone is going to spend the decades it requires to understand the boundaries of our knowledge (not that I necessarily do). But I don't like to see people pass such arguments off on others. Science obviously does not have an answer to every question, but this is almost always because its a bad question to begin with... and never, ever anywhere does it conclude or even suggest there must be 'something beyond' the physical.

bones wrote:
There's nothing special about logical thought. Logic arises from cognitive metaphor of basic perceptual schema, in the context of neural physiology. Platonism died with modern biology and cognitive science. Translation: we can take what we think we know and imagine things about it.

1 + 1 = 2. If I know that 1 represents a singular object/unit, I know that if I have one more, I have twice that 1, or what we refer to as two. Knowing that 2 represents two of 1, or twice 1, I can use logical thought to deduce that combining two sets of 2 would get me two times 2, or what we refer to as 4. Thus, from understanding that 1 + 1 = 2, I used logical thought to determine that 2 + 2 = 4. This is not imagination, but truth. 1 + 1 DOES = 2. I don't think I know this, but realize this as truth. Thus, I have taken what I DO know and learned/solved something else from it. Logical thought is quite important. Although my example is very simple, it represents the whole of the development of mathematics. No one just suddenly decided, "Why, let's make up a bunch of meaningless jargon and use it to solve real life problems!" It was developed through the logical processing of things we already knew, or had already learned. I am not trying to argue the origin of math, but simply to display that logical thought is indeed important.

Quote:

bones wrote:

What physical law would this be? I have a Ph.D. in physics and I have never heard of it. What is a 'physical thing'?

I cannot name right off the top of my head the name of the law, but I can assure you that no physical thing can create itself. I'll keep searching for the name, but while I do, ask yourself this- what physical thing CAN create itself?

When I say physical thing, I refer to everything that exists in the universe (I use the universe here referring to the entirety of space and beyond, and everything within it. When I say beyond, I refer to facets of the universe we have yet to discover, but not to planes such as Heaven or Hell).

Quote:

bones wrote:
Is time itself not a 'physical thing'? This notion of 'before' is too simplistic to address questions about the origin of the universe.

Time itself is not a physical thing- it is the measurement of the movement and change of matter and energy. It itself is not a form of matter, space, or energy- it's just something we created for our convenience. It's far easier to say 'Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492' than to say 'Columbus sailed the ocean blue when the earth had only made approximately X revolutions around the sun.'

Quote:

bones wrote:

I have no problem if people want to believe in metaphysical things. Not everyone is going to spend the decades it requires to understand the boundaries of our knowledge (not that I necessarily do). But I don't like to see people pass such arguments off on others. Science obviously does not have an answer to every question, but this is almost always because its a bad question to begin with... and never, ever anywhere does it conclude or even suggest there must be 'something beyond' the physical.

I don't mean to come off as nit-picky, but I didn't say science concluded or suggested that there is something beyond the physical, I said that logical thought led there. These are two very different things, but both can help us understand things. Nor did I say that my argument was scientific fact- I referred to it as a thesis ( A proposition to be defended or maintained by argument), one that was created using logical thought.

Just one or two things about Christianity destroying and polluting the earth because this was part of the first post, too.
As far as I know, every highly developed culture no matter what religion or time has set out to colonize, oppress and exploit other people. The Egyptians took the better part of north and middle Africa, the Babylonians took Israel, the Romans all of the world that was known at this time, the Atztecs ruled Middle America,... And all of this cultures started to pollute and destroy their environment. The Sahara became as big as it is because of the Romans cutting down the big forests of North Africa to build ships for their navy. One of the reasons the Maya culture simply vanished is that they destroyed their environment ( I don't know whether this is right but I think it was a drinking water problem). This list could go on for mega bytes. Even in the 20th century colonies were not only given their independence but new were made e.g. the Japanese taking Korea.
So, Christians are not even the last in the row.

Brian wrote:
I don't mean to come off as nit-picky, but I didn't say science concluded or suggested that there is something beyond the physical... Nor did I say that my argument was scientific fact- I referred to it as a thesis
[/b]

You are right, I was perhaps a little too direct about that. This is not really an Aikido topic, so I'll keep my reply short: Time is not so simple as you may think, as we have known since the debut of special relativity in 1905. For instance, someone living in an orbiting satellite will age more slowly than someone on earth, because TIME ITSELF moves slower. This has been measured. Time is in fact an aspect of space, and in some degree interchangable with it. Not that I have all the answers, the nature of time continues to baffle people. And, quantum fluctuations do exist where a particle and anti-particle pair will appear out of vaccuum, or nothingness. (If there are any other physicists out there, lets not argue about the physicality of quantum fields, OK?). I just want to point out that things are very much more strange and complicated than most people realize, and if yr interested in this kind of thing I encourage you to follow up on it. This is how I became a physicist. When confronted with such strangeness one quickly sees that everyday reasoning like '1+1=2' doesn't get you far. peace.

Brian wrote:
1 + 1 = 2. If I know that 1 represents a singular object/unit, I know that if I have one more, I have twice that 1, or what we refer to as two.

Correct; to relate this to Bones' statement, the singular object/unit is a component of your perceptual schema.

The concept of "1" is a component of the cognitive metaphor (i.e., mathematics) of that perceptual schema.

It just so happens that we chose a cognitive metaphor that matches our perceptual schema quite well (not by accident, of course -- one that didn't match would not be very effective and would be nothing more than a possibly interesting intellectual game).

Quote:

This is not imagination, but truth. 1 + 1 DOES = 2. I don't think I know this, but realize this as truth.

Correct again. This is a true statement about your cognitive metaphor (mathematics). Unfortunately, the only reason to believe that corresponding statements about actual things are true is because mathematics matches our perceptual schema pretty well.

Why do we believe that mathematical statements are true of actual things? Mostly because of experience, intuition, and yes, faith. These are the same reasons that for many years it was believed that the laws of Newtonian physics were true of actual things. Now we know that there are physical things regarding which Newtonian physics does not work.

Don't assume that the perceptual schema cannot change; it can and has many times. When it does we scramble to find a new cognitive metaphor that matches accordingly.

Quote:

Thus, I have taken what I DO know and learned/solved something else from it.

Indeed. Unfortunately the assumption that your logical framework always holds in the real world may not be valid.

I think this is part of the point Bones was making.

Quote:

I am not trying to argue the origin of math, but simply to display that logical thought is indeed important.

Fair enough, but when you are trying to apply logic to prove something metaphysical (or even about the nature or origin of physical stuff), you have to consider what logic actually *is* and how it relates to what's actually happening. Logic has some nasty limitations.

Quote:

I cannot name right off the top of my head the name of the law, but I can assure you that no physical thing can create itself. I'll keep searching for the name, but while I do, ask yourself this- what physical thing CAN create itself?

Actually, the law of conservation of matter and energy says that neither matter nor energy are created or destroyed, only converted from one to the other. (I'm not a physicist but I'm pretty sure that's correct).

Quote:

Time itself is not a physical thing- it is the measurement of the movement and change of matter and energy. It itself is not a form of matter, space, or energy- it's just something we created for our convenience.

Actually, special relativity says that time and space are not different. (Once again, I'm not a physicist but I'm pretty sure that's right).

Note that special relativity, the law of conservation of matter and energy, mathematics, and logic are all cognitive metaphors. There is always the possibility that we will find a situation in which inconsistencies arise.

It may be that a direct consequence of Goedel's Theorem that:

If our world is a logical place (i.e., we don't find physical inconsistencies) then we will discover that there are things in the world logic cannot touch. Conversely, if logic can apply to everything, then it will break in some situations and there will inevitably be physical inconsistencies

Is this an aikido-related topic?

Probably not for most, but it is for me: I would not have discovered this art had I not been perplexed by these very issues. There is something about direct experience that I don't think logic applies to. For me, aikido is one way to study this.

Indeed. Unfortunately the assumption that your logical framework always holds in the real world may not be valid. [/b]

Undoubtedly. However, until we are shown that what our logical framework holds to be real is in fact not, then we can only stick to what our logical framework tells us, at which point we can begin to modify our understanding of other things. Personally, when writing a paper for school, I find it far easier to assume what I know to be real(that is, am pretty sure I know to be real, having not yet been shown different) is in fact real (rather, has been displayed up to this point to be real) then writing countless side notes (more accurately, what my mind has come to describe as side notes) indicating that each point, law, etc. is only believed ot be valid, but may not be (at least, valid as we have come to define it). Do you see what I have just displayed? What I'm trying to say is, until we are shown different, we'll have to trust what we've been shown is valid.

To remotely tie this into aikido, umm... it's safe to assume that when you throw uke, uke will hit the mat due to gravity rather than fly out of orbit, because of the laws of gravity we have come to believe as valid have yet to be disproved or altered.

When I go through a religious crisis (which seem to come with regularity) I have found that studying is a good way to pass the time and possibly solve the situation.

I wish I could help everyone with their search for fulfillment.

I really hate to say this, but nothing I say will help you with a religious crisis. Those decisions must be made in your heart. I know that prayer and meditation have been sources of strength to me in times of distress, they may be worth a try.

None of you have met me and none of you have seen me, yet I am here. I know this, yet you do not, because your physical senses cannot percieve me. Nevertheless, the fact that I am writing produces stronger evidence of my existence that anyone could produce of my non-existence. In other words, your belief that I am here must be entrely based upon the fact that these words appear on your computer monitor. You acknowledge that I am here because you see my works, not because you see me.
Such is it with God.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,"
Romans 1:20
If you want information on the evidence of God, feel free to contact me personally at bennagy@mstar2.net. I guarantee that I can produce significantly more evidence proving the existence of a God than anybody could produce disproving the existence of a God. And if the scales are tipped to the left, would not a wise man say that the left side is heavier?

Now, to attempt to tie this in to aikido: Especialy when combating multiple opponents, it is unwise to underestimate your allies or your foes. Whether you see them in front of you or not, they might be there.
Ben Nagy

Ben wrote:
None of you have met me and none of you have seen me, yet I am here. I know this, yet you do not, because your physical senses cannot percieve me. Nevertheless, the fact that I am writing produces stronger evidence of my existence that anyone could produce of my non-existence. In other words, your belief that I am here must be entrely based upon the fact that these words appear on your computer monitor. You acknowledge that I am here because you see my works, not because you see me.
Such is it with God.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,"
Romans 1:20
If you want information on the evidence of God, feel free to contact me personally at bennagy@mstar2.net. I guarantee that I can produce significantly more evidence proving the existence of a God than anybody could produce disproving the existence of a God. And if the scales are tipped to the left, would not a wise man say that the left side is heavier?

Now, to attempt to tie this in to aikido: Especialy when combating multiple opponents, it is unwise to underestimate your allies or your foes. Whether you see them in front of you or not, they might be there.
Ben Nagy

I should have stayed away. I knew better than to get involved and I tried, I really tried.

When I was a little boy, presents magically appeared, cookies were munched on and milk was drunk. All evidence of Santa Claus. Personally, I have not searched every inch of the North Pole so Santa could actually be hiding up there. Lastly, my parents have never admitted to any treachery, and they seem to be good people, so all the evidence still points to there being a Santa Claus.

I cannot disprove Santa Claus.

We've had thunder and lightning in the past. Despite the analysis of weather patterns and science it doesn't disprove that Thor was in a pissy mood and felt like frying a telephone pole or 2. Why telephone poles? Apparently the God of Thunder works in mysterious ways. With a little research I could find as much proof for the Nordic mythology or any other mythology as you can for your mythology.

Actually, research will get in the way. I'm going to stick with "just because".

I do not intend to say that I have 100% unquestionable concrete evidence that my views are correct, but I would personally have a difficult time believing if I could not support my beliefs with fact. I have not always been a Christian, by the way.

As far as the Santa Claus theory; If I had placed a plate of cookies in to a sealed metal container and welded it shut before going to bed, I would begin to wonder about the existence of some form of cookie eater if the cookies were gone from the box when I cut it open with my arc welder on Christmas morning. I would still be without proof of Santa Claus, but if I already believed in his existence, my faith would be greatly strengthened.

The evidence that I'm talking about pertains to studies that can be done. I would never be so foolish as to base my beliefs on the logic of "nobody can possibly study it, therefore it's truth."

If anyone can answer those two simple questions then they should ascend to a realm of beings higher than mere mortals.

Please do not confuse science and religion. One is based on percieved facts (science) and the other is based on faith. Not all religion can be disproved by science. And ever since the death of Galileo for claiming that the Earth orbited the Sun religion had better stay out of the realm of science.

If science and religion clash on issues, ie creationism verses darwinism then only a person can decide for themselves. No one can dictate unto anyone the feelings of their heart. Your beliefs are personal and private. I think it is a shame that we attach feelings of "I'm right and you're wrong" to belief systems. I am a devoted Christian but I admire the beauty of Taoism.

And for all you philosophers out there who want to get into the subject of belief and existence, you are wasting your time. What is, is, what is not, is not. And all the proof that you can state is just a personal belief.

We believe in facts and theories and sooner or later other facts and theories arise to challenge the ones we believe in. There is still a society today that espouses the belief that the world is flat. Go figure.

I am a Christian and hoping to become a Catholic priest, I also am a 4th dan instructor and love my aikido. I think brian there are a lot of issues to sort here but not time or room to give them justice. Many people have issues over a religion because they have bad experiences of it or someone who represents it, this is sad.... remember that God and religion are two different things. Religion is mans construction of paths to get to God, but not perfect by any means. Practice your aikido with all your might and train through these conflicting feelings you have. They will pass. Keep your heart open to God by practicing with love and He will come to you in his time. "When the student is ready the sensei appears"